that we know is intolerably high. and you can't just once a production line of a sophisticateed aircraft like the f-16 is shut down, you can't decide, well, next year or the year after, we're going to start it up again unless you're going to add tremendously to the cost, and it just makes it far less likely that it will ever get made because of the costs and because of the sheer magnitude of the effort of trying to get this production line back together and all the people who are employed there back to work. that's why, to respond to the distinguished chairman of the finance committee, the manager of the bill, why it's so important in terms of the timeliness. i agree there is a time for everything, but the time for this is now. and i would just say finally that as i indicated earlier, this is a bipartisan measure, the 47 senators who signed

letters to the president urging the sale, 13 democrats along with the remainder is republicans. in the house, this letter i mentioned earlier which is made part of the record is 181 members of the house, a bipartisan list. i actually think that if the manager of the bill, the chairman of the finance committee, would accept this amendment, it would enhance the votes for the very bill that he wants to see passed out of the senate perhaps later today. in conclusion, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the time allocated for senator thune be reserved within the time allocated to the minority and that quorum calls be charged equally between the majority and the minority bill time first. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. cornyn: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my short time that i'm asking for as if in morning business not be

taken from either side in this agreement. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, let me say as far as the subjects are concerned right now, i'm very proud to have been the first, one of the first signatures on this effort. it's good for every reason that the senator from texas mentioned. on top of that, you have allies that we're dealing with. you have the employment situation. i know this is going to be successful, and i appreciate all the effort that's gone forth. mr. president, today i want to recognize and pay tribute to army specialist christopher david horton of owasa, oklahoma, home of the rams in case people don't know. chris was born in tulsa on october 1, 1984. he was deployed to afghanistan with over 2,000 oklahoma national guard soldiers from the 45th infantry brigade combat team.

there are actually 3,000 initially in this deployment. some of them actually went to kuwait at the last minute. he was deployed to afghanistan and this combat team, the 45th, has probably had more deployments than anyone else, although this was chris' first deployment. his unit was attacked by enemy forces on september 9, 2011. chris and two of his fellow soldiers, sergeant brent eisenhower and tony potter died of injuries sustained from that firefight. he would have turned 27 next week, on october 1. chris attended the missouri military academy in mexico, missouri, and graduated in 2003. he excelled militarily and academically during his six years at the military academy. he was the second platoon leader

his senior year, captain of the rifle team and honor roll earning him the abg -- academic award. chris lived a remarkable life driven by excellence and service and he often spoke of the need for america to excel. he was a business owner and voluntary police officer. he was extremely patriotic, ex-troeplly patriotic and -- extremely patriotic in his love for america and for the freedoms and knowing they have to be protected. chris was an accomplished recreational shooter and professional sponsored shooter through the united states shaogd academy of -- shooting academy of owasa, oklahoma. he was first place, novice pistol in the oklahoma national guard, first place novice pistol in the governors 20 matches. this guy was really good. he excelled and was among the very best.

that was something he enjoyed. but in addition to shooting, and this is kind of interesting because things bond you together. i came so close to meeting him, but i never actually did. but one of the things we had in common is werl both avid -- we're both avid fishermen. he loved fishing, and that was one of the things he enjoyed very much. every opportunity he had he fished both ocean and fresh water fishes. his younger brother nick said he was the best big brother i could ever have asked for. he taught me how to drive a car and how to fish. that pretty much tells it all. chris' mother said my son's passion his whole life was to a part of the military. he wanted to be a part of the military. he loved his country, and he really wanted to serve his country. he was absolutely made to be a soldier. this is a mother speaking. christen listed in the oklahoma national guard in 2008 and was assigned to the first battalion of the 279th infantry regiment of the 45th brigade of the

army national guard. he attended basic training at fort benning, georgia, became a sniper qualified infantry man. and to no one's surprise graduated at the top of his class. chris leaves behind his parents, sheree and david horton, his brother nicholas, his sister tenly and his wife jane horton. chris met jane while attending king's college in new york city. jane said it was chris' fiery passion and their mutual love for politics that brought them together. he was the most honorable man i've ever met in my life and that's why i snagged him and we were engaged within two months. we were married very fast. so she knew what she was out after. i know this is true because my staff and i got to know chris through his wife, jane. she was an intern for me. she worked in my office, and we had these exchanges all the time. as could be expected, jane took a personal interest in operations afghanistan. she worked with my legislative

staff responsible for military and veterans affairs. during her time in washington, she coordinated a campaign that resulted in over 20 care packages being sent to the oklahoma national guard infantry combat brigade. i can tell you this, having been over there at a time when a lot of these car packages come in, we -- care packages come in, we know as we go across this country in helicopters that a lot of these packages, even though the people at home don't know it, they're dropped to kids on the ground who love what we're doing there. i think jane represents the best asset our military has at its disposal and that's the military spouses. her zeal and dedication are not uncommon attributes for military spouses who -- quote -- "hold down the for the" -- hold down the fort" while their loved ones are deployed. i looked forward to meeting chris during my upcoming trip another week from now to

afghanistan. i had a meeting during the break, the recess, in collinsville, oklahoma, and jane was there, and we talked about how we're going to meet up with chris in my upcoming trip to afghanistan. and i looked forward to meeting him during that trip. while this personal conversation won't happen, i'm committed to making chris' desire that our nation be led down the right path a reality. chris lived a life of love for his family, friends and country. he'll be remembered for his commitment to and belief in the greatness of our nation. here are some of the comments posted online in honor of his life. i think it's kind of need to read a lot of these. they come from assorted different people. some are members of the family, some are not. god's got a good warrior up there with him now. another one, i want to thank the family of this wonderful young man who was willing to give his life for our freedom. may no one in america take this act lightly. love and prayers to all the families and friends.

christopher -- here's another -- christopher david horton was the kind of young man who would do anything for anybody. another one: heaves a hero -- he was a hero. each and every service man or woman are heroes. they will protect our freedom. without them, we cannot -- it went ton say thank you action specialist christopher horton. may you rest in peace. prayers for you and your family. this one is my favorite one by his brother nick. he said you will be missed more than anything brother. especially on the range. you always gave me a run for my money. until we meet again in heaven. that's kind of great, you know. this tough fight took place -- took the life of chris, but make no mistake, chris' sacrifice made a difference and will continue to make a difference not just in afghanistan but here in the united states. we are safe and our country is secure because of chris and all the service men and the women. we've got to continue to, in our

unwavering support for them. although each service member we lose hurts because it's our connection to jane that my staff and i are particularly affected by the loss of specialist chris horton. i extend the deepest gratitude and condolences to chris' family. i'll say something i'll be criticized for. i always am. i've always been a jesus guy. i find out of course so was chris. when something like this happens, even though we didn't personally meet, we were brothers. in a case like this, you don't say goodbye, chris. you say, i'll see you later. i'll yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: thank you. madam president, are we in a time limit to discuss the cornyn amendment? the presiding officer: senator cornyn has 33 minutes remaining. mrs. hutchison: thank you. madam president, i want to speak on the cornyn amendment, and i ask unanimous consent that i be listed as cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: madam president, the cornyn amendment is

important because the president of the united states has refused to allow the sale of 66 f-16 c-d model aircraft to taiwan. taiwan is trying to modernize its air force, and it's not an issue of our not selling to taiwan. we have sold the a-b models. so they have 145 f-16's in the earlier models, the a-b, but they are now, of course, trying to get the next generation of f-16. this is a foreign policy issue. it's also a domestic issue because these are very important sales, the 66 for the line to be continued, the f-16 line that is hoping that this sale will go

through is very important so that we can continue to make them for ourselves but also to sell them to our allies and most certainly taiwan is an ally and has used and liked the f-16. now, taiwan has also used the french mirage, but the french mirage, it has a shortage of parts for taiwan, and they are trying to consolidate with f-16's american jobs and american fighters, and now they are running into the roadblock of the administration. within the next decade, taiwan will retire 70% of its fighter force structure. its f-5's have reached the end of their utility. the mirage fighters lack parts and life cycle support, and its indigenous defense fighters are being converted to trainers. taiwan's existing 145 f-16 a-b

fighters all require a mid life upgrade. with the f-16's already in the inventory, they are seeking to combine their whole fighter fleet with the single air frame with the cost and operational benefits and the efficiencies that one fighter frame would give them. we are concerned that further delay of the decision to sell the f-16's to taiwan could, in fact, close the production line. that's why 45 members of the united states senate have signed a letter to president barack obama asking him to go forward with this sale of 66 f-16 c.d. c.d. -- cd's to taiwan. the taiwan relations act of 1979 directs congress and the president to make decisions on arm sales to taiwan based solely on the judgment of the needs of

taiwan. we believe that the taiwanese pilots flying taiwanese fighter aircraft manufactured in the united states represents the best first line of defense for our democratic ally and do not pose any threat to china. there is no offense here. the taiwan air force just patrols the taiwan straits to assure its safety and security. so i rise in support of the amendment that has been offered. it is very important, the bipartisan support in congress for working with our ally taiwan without any offense to china is an important one that we need to asure remains solid and firm. i hope that our colleagues will help us with the amendment that will assure that this sale goes

through, that we keep the commitments that we have made and that we have the ability to sell to taiwan, otherwise they will surely look for other countries to buy from, and that's not in our interest. here we are trying to create jobs in america. it is certainly in our strategic interest to have our ally buy our products so that we can do the training and work with them and have a strengthening of not only our trade but our defense alliance. and it just makes sense to go forward. it's not as if we don't sell to taiwan. they have already bought 145 f-16's. they want 66 more of the newer version. mr. president, it is time for us to do what is right for our country, for jobs in our country, for our national defense and for the keeping of our commitments and ties with

our ally taiwan. i urge support for the cornyn amendment since so many democrats have signed the letter to the president. i hope that that will translate into votes for the amendment so that it will be clear that the bipartisan support and this -- in this united states senate for the f-16 sales to taiwan is accomplished. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: thank you. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: madam president, i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: madam president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. kirk: madam president, i rise today to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. kirk: i ask to vitiate the -- i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kirk: i rise today to commend the senate appropriations committee under the leadership of chairman leahy and ranking member graham. on a decision we made yesterday as a full committee with regard to u.s. assistance to pakistan. in short, what the senate did was to remove nearly all of the guarantees of assistance funding

to the pakistani government based on new information and statements made by senior u.s. government officials on the pakistani government and its intelligence service called the i.s.i.'s support for an organization called the haqqani network, one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on earth. we have learned from statements by our u.s. ambassador in kabul, u.s. ambassador in islamabad, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that the haqqani network has become the principal threat to the afghan government, to u.s. troops serving in afghanistan and to our nato allies. just recently, we have seen the u.s. embassy in kabul and nato headquarters was attacked on september 12. at least 16 people were killed, including five afghan police officers and 11 civilians in an attack organized and put together by the haqqani network

under the direct protection and support of pakistan's government itself. just a few days earlier at combat post sayid abbad on september 10, over 77 u.s. soldiers and 17 afghans were injured by a massive truck bomb, likely put together by the haqqani network, probably in afghanistan, for an attack on americans. this june, on june 28 at the hotel intercontinental in kabul, 12 afghans were killed and eight were wounded during a nighttime attack, also likely sponsored by the haqqani network. and in february, that same network attacked kabul bank, on february 19, with over 40 people killed. the haqqani network is a different branch of the taliban. the taliban largely do not have the safest sanctuary in

afghanistan or pakistan. they have surrendered much of their operational control and initiative in eastern afghanistan to the haqqani network. the reason why the haqqani network has become so powerful and so strong is because it is protected by the government of pakistan itself. a claimed ally of the united states that receives substantial assistance provided by this congress. we have seen a very clear picture emerge from the administration directly connecting the government of afghanistan to the haqqani network in support and assistance that is involved in the death of american service men and women and our nato and afghan allies. this started out on september 13, when one of our most able foreign service officers, a real hero of the foreign service, our ambassador in afghanistan, ryan

crocker, a highlight of pakistan support for the haqqani network and its role in attacks in afghanistan. just four days later our u.s. ambassador, his counterpart in islamabad, cameron munter, gave a very important and i frankly think brave interview on pakistani state radio, highlighting the role of pakistan government's support for its role and its attack on u.s. service men and women in afghanistan. the following day secretary of state hillary clinton in a meeting with foreign minister carr also highlighted government support for this terrorist situation and its attack on men and women serving in uniform in afghanistan. on september 27 the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen in a presentation in front of the carnegie

endowment for peace also highlighted pakistan's official government support for the i.s.i. and the haqqani network. in testimony today in the senate armed services committee, admiral mullen reiterated these claims, stating that the i.s.i. of pakistan's government had provided explicit support for an attack on the u.s. embassy in kabul and our nato headquarters. the haqqani network supported by the government of pakistan is also responsible for attacks on afghan and indian construction efforts in the kabul gardese road at an attack that killed seven c.i.a. employees and the kidnapping of british and american journalists. within pakistan, the haqqani network sefrbgs -- serves as a trusted intermediary between the pakistan intelligence service and terrorist organizations active also in attacking the indian democracy in kashmir and

throughout the subcontinent. these include groups like lashkar e tiba. secretary clinton, secretary panetta, admiral mullen, ambassador crocker, ambassador munter and the congress, republicans and democrats here in the senate now all agree that pakistan government complicity and long-standing history of support and protection for the haqqani network is a major impediment of the united states goal of achieving safety and security in pakistan and afghanistan. the pakistani government should end its protection of the haqqani network. the haqqani network is a wholly owned subsidiary of the i.s.i. and responsible for the death of american service men and women and civilians in afghanistan.

both the united states and pakistan would benefit from a strong and stable afghanistan, but the i.s.i., part of the pakistani government, disagrees and supports terror. that's why it's so important that the senate made this decision to remove all but the counterterrorism accounts from pakistan and to put in new language conditioning any extension of aid to pakistan on cooperation against the haqqani network. now we will need to define what cooperation means. and i hope what it will mean is, number one, a substantive and continuous reduction in haqqani op tempo against u.s. and nato forces in afghanistan, showing that nearly all of the attacks have been eliminated within the calendar year. on top of that, authority or action by the united states, our

nato allies, to hit haqqani targets in the frontier tribal area where they have been protected to date. unless we can meet these two conditions, i believe that the decision that we have made to remove the force and stop the guaranteed funding for pakistan is a wise one. this is a rare moment in which the u.s. ambassador in kabul, the u.s. ambassador in islamabad, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state have all said that the pakistani government directly supports terror through the haqqani network and needs to stop. and in these tough economic times, where nearly all of the assistance under the legislation approved yesterday is in the overseas contingent operation account, which, remember, is all borrowed money to be provided to pakistan, should be done only if their policy of supporting the

haqqani network ends. i'm very glad that the administration and now the congress has spoken with a clear voice. i only hope that we hold our nerve, because otherwise if we go by past policies of having pakistani promises and official statements be the mere cause for releasing u.s. aid, we will repeat the failures of the current policy. we need actual action. we need to understand that senior pakistani officials of their foreign ministry, of their intelligence service and of their defense department have directly lied to american officials. and only by action and cutting off the haqqani network can we make sure that at least the u.s. taxpayer is not supporting this terrorism. i commend the action of the foreign operations committee yesterday. i commend that it was a bipartisan action. and now i hope that we stick to our guns and make sure that we do not provide assistance to

pakistan unless they stop supporting this most dangerous now terrorist organization operating against our men and women in uniform serving in afghanistan. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that, to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i first rise to speak just for 30 seconds on the trade adjustment assistance legislation and the amendment that senator baucus and senator casey and i have been working on to make sure that trade adjustment is available to workers who have lost their jobs because of service or manufacturing trade competition, only not real competition because so often the deck is stacked far too much against american workers and american companies. i don't want to see this, these

amendments, other amendments not withstanding, i don't want to see this restricted to only those workers who have lost their jobs based on -- lost their jobs from unfair competition from countries we don't have trade agreements with. it's almost silly to have to say that. we need to keep this program focused on all workers who need some assistance, need to be retrained; they lost their job through no doing of their own. madam president, that begs the next issue, and that is something that a group of us, bipartisan group of ten senators, republican senator burr, senator graham, senator sessions, senator snowe and senator collins; and five democratic senators: senator schumer, senator stabenow, i'm one of the five, senator hagan, and senator casey. each of us has pushed for legislation dealing with the problems of currency. and the chinese have clearly gamed the system. spwaoepbt all this time -- we spent all this time,

mr. president, on the budget deficit. it's certainly worth addressing in a big way. and we spent so little time on the trade deficit. the trade deficit cuts in to undermining american jobs. a recent study showed that literally hundreds of thousands, some 2.8 million jobs have been lost to china since 2001, just in a decade. two-thirds of those manufacturing jobs because of unfair trade practices in part because of the way the chinese game the system on currency. our legislation simply, says several things. one of the most important parts of this legislation is simply telling the u.s. government that it must consider on trade cases when it's doing an investigation, must consider currency manipulation by the chinese. this will result, we know, in significant job growth in our country. it will mean more exports of u.s. products to china because it takes off that advantage they have. it will mean that american companies making things here

could compete with chinese competition trying to sell into our market, again, because it takes away the unfair subsidies that the chinese have had. you don't have to go very many places in west virginia and connecticut and ohio and see how many cases there are of products sold in this country that used to be made here and are now being made in china. it's not, currency's not the only reason but it's surely one of the significant reasons. i'll close with this. a brief story about a company in ohio, southwest ohio which manufactures paper. until a decade and a half ago, the chinese, people's republic of china didn't even have a coated paper industry. that's the paper, sort of magazine glossy paper that we're all familiar with. the chinese didn't even make that kind of technology, that kind of paper a decade and a half ago. since then they started the industry. here's what they do. they buy their wood pulp in bra s.d.i. they ship it -- they ship

it a long way away in china, mill it, ship it back to the united states and undercut american companies by underpricing american companies, southwest ohio in many cases, and other places. they undercut them with price. tell me when, to make paper only 10% of paper costs are labor costs. so what that means, it means that the chinese are subsidizing water and credit and land and energy and labor and currency. for us to fight back, we've been somewhat successful on fighting back in showing that the chinese are cheating. but if we have that additional tool that they cannot game the currency system, we will not see the kind of job loss, the hemorrhaging of jobs in west virginia, ohio and all over this country. we will be able, american companies, some of the most efficient in the world, the workers, the best in the world, will be able to compete on a

much more level playing field. that's what we're introducing. we spoke about it today. it's essential that the senate move forward on it. i also thank senator blumenthal for giving me these five minutes. thank you, mr. president. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: first i ask to speak as though we are in morning business. the presiding officer: we are not in morning business, sir. mr. blumenthal: then i will proceed. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: first of all, i would like to commend and thank the senator from ohio for his very, very important efforts on chinese currency manipulation. i've been proud to be a cosponsor with him on his legislation. i intend to introduce my own. he has been a very stalwart advocate and champion of the united states trade interests and really deserves the thanks

and commendation of this body and the entire american people thank you, to the senator from ohio. i rise today to restate at this historic and crucial juncture in world history my unwavering commitment, stated so eloquently by many in this body over the years, to the united states-israel relationship and america's unshakeable commitment to israel's security. i want to thank the president of the united states for his address to the united nations which very powerfully and courageously stated that commitment. the president's strong message shows again that our shared interests as well as our friendship with israel are deep and enduring. as my colleagues know, all too well, the israelis and palestinian must reach agreement on the issues that divide them, not through the united nations. israel has repeatedly endorsed a

two-state solution that will sustain it as a jewish and democratic homeland to be achievable any lasting peace and any plan for peace must acknowledge the real security concerns that israel faces day in and day out and has faced throughout its history. the president's powerful remarks at the united nations were inspiring in a forum that has been repeatedly hijacked by dictators and despots for the purpose of delegitimizing israel and fomenting anti-semitism. the palestinians' authority bid for united nations recognition is a distraction from the hard work, the really hard work needed to achieve peace and find an equitable solution. as the president said -- and i'm

quoting -- "the fact is peace is hard." to suck side -- again quoting -- to succeed, "peace depends upon compromise of people who must live together long after our speeches are over." end of quote. tough compromises will have to be made by both the israelis and the palestinians. the united states is ready to assess both peoples in taking necessary risks for peace, and israel is willing to sit down and commence those talks immediately with the palestinians. the bid for united states recognition is also a distraction from the deteriorating situation in the middle east where governments of the region, both old and new, seem all too willing to use israel as a target and as a scapegoat rather than face the legitimate needs of their own

people. in turkey, for example, the government has stretched to seek a confrontation with israel rather than addressed the humanitarian disaster on its doorstep in syria. in egypt, the government honored those who attacked the israeli embassy. in cairo, rather than release from detention the egyptians, their own citizens, arrested for advocating for democratic reforms and freedom. and most disconcerting of all, most concerning to many in this chamber, iran's government has doggedly produced and pursued nuclear weapons, threatening to destabilize the entire region. nobody is fooled about the military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. we don't know on this day how

the palestinian authority's bid for statehood recognition at the united nations will be resolved, but i do know that my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle will not be sidetracked from advocating for the hard work toward peace by encouraging the palestinian authority to return to the negotiating table which they have refused to do and by continuing strong united states-israel defense cooperation, our nation will deter those who would seek to achieve victory over israel, either using the force of arms or manipulating international institutions such as the united nations. by sending the eye ran, north korea and syria sanctions consolidation act of 2011 to the president for his signature, we can do our part to call

attention to iran's use of denial and deceit to advance its nuclear program. by passing a foreign operations appropriation for fiscal year 2012 that aligns our assistance with our international commitments, including including $3 billion in aid to israel, this body will again demonstrate its leadership in striving for peace. finally, i would be remiss if i did not call attention to the fact that while each of us is free to speak here and each of us was free to hear the president's remarks, yesterday and today were another day that eli chile remained a hostage of

hamas. we must repudiate and reject those who forge a nation while continuing to collaborate with his captors. i urge his release. i look forward to working with my colleagues and the president on all of these efforts. they are truly bipartisan, they unite us as a body, and they unite the american people, and i thank you and i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. i yield to the distinguished senator from virginia. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: for up to five minutes. let me, first of all, thank my friend, the senator from connecticut, and let me add my voice to his. there is no better friend,

stronger ally, and this is one of the key relationships our country has. and like the senator from connecticut and i know the presiding officer and others, we have a lot of things we disagree with, but our firm support for israel, particularly at a time when there is so much turmoil in that region, it is important that senator blumenthal came and spoke so eloquently on that issue, and i thank him for his comments. mr. president, i'm only going to take a moment today and repeat something i do on a regular basis, actually something i inherited from the former senator from delaware, senator kaufman when he was here who said on a fairly regular basis that he would come down and recognize the great work of individual federal employees. we spend a lot of time in this body talking about what government doesn't do well and

the needs to rein in and get our government in order. i know that is true. the presiding officer and i share those beliefs, but there is an awful lot of good folks who work for our federal government day in and day out that don't get much recognition but provide incredibly valuable service to literally the 300 million americans. and so following senator kaufman's footsteps, i come down and we pick a federal employee to recognize. i will get to this federal employee in a moment, but let me just say we have already seen rumblings in the press of a -- another potential political brinkmanship around the end of the fiscal year. i see my good friend, the senator from maryland, who like me, a senator from virginia, we have a disproportionate number of federal employees in our respective states. actually, the presiding officer from west virginia probably has a disproportionate amount of federal employees as well at

this point. you have to remember, every time we get to that 11th hour, we put all of these federal employees' lives in limbo, and that is not fair, it is not right. every time we do this, we self-inflict upon this economy another effort imposed by us that slows our economic recovery. so i know the majority leader and others are trying to work in good faith to make sure that we don't have another brinkmanship around the end of the fiscal year. a senator: would the gentleman yield for just a moment? mr. warner: i would be more than happy to yield to my good friend, the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me thank my colleague from virginia. he is absolutely right. we went through a pretty tough time a month ago and we reached an agreement on the funding levels. this should be a very simple process to get a continuing resolution passed that will extend the government based upon

the agreement that was reached just a month ago. and you're right about our federal work force. our federal work force is doing more work with less people, they are subjected to a two-year pay freeze which they were subjected to before we had an agreement to deal with the deficit, and they are -- for the sake of our federal employees, for the sake of people depending upon our services, for the sake of our economy and for good governance, the passage of a -- what we call a clean continuing resolution that allows us to work out the individual appropriation bills should be beyond any disagreement. i thank the senator from virginia for your leadership, not only on behalf of federal employees but your leadership on behalf of sensible budgeting so that we don't have to go through this type of ordeal and put

people through this unnecessary anxiety. mr. warner: i thank the senator from maryland. with that, let me just take a moment or so again in this continuing effort to recognize examples of the kind of people who serve our government. oftentimes again for not much recognition, a lot less pay oftentimes, and candidly oftentimes from people on both sides of the aisle some disdain. so today, mr. president, i'm pleased to honor dr. alphonzo batrise. he is the chief readjustment counseling officer at the veterans administration. he has direct overnight of 300 vet centers, 50 mobile vet centers and 1,900 vet center staff providing readjustment services to war zone veterans and their families coos the country. dr. batrise has worked extensively to ensure that the vet centers which are small storefront operations located throughout the country are

accessible to as many people as possible. his efforts led nearly 200,000 veterans and their families to visit vet centers, a total of 1.2 million times in 2010 alone. dr. batrise has also expanded the scope of coverage of the vet centers and worked to improve the quality of the services offered to our veterans. for example, he developed family bereavement services and the combat call center which allows veterans to talk to other combat veterans about issues they may be experiencing. dr. batres's dedication to providing quality care has led to praise throughout the health care community. according to a former veterans affairs colleague, dr. batres's combination of vision and personal experience has translated into the vet center becoming the gold standard and a model for public health programs. in an interview, dr. batres said -- quote -- "the opportunity to

serve veterans and their families as a civil servant through the vet center programs has been a dream realized and an honor." mr. president, in 2009, when i first joined this body, i helped launch a comprehensive study that evaluated the quality of care and benefits that we are providing to our returning combat veterans, especially women who are affected by posttraumatic stress syndrome and traumatic brain injury. i think we are very fortunate to have someone as dedicated as dr. batres working on these important issues. i hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the doctor as well as all those at the department of veterans affairs for their excellent work today. also i am proud to recognize that dr. batres as a virginian and a vietnam veteran has dedicated 37 years to public service. so echoing the comments of my friend, the senator from maryland, there will be things

we disagree with with our friends on the other side. we ought to have a way to argue, debate and decide those disagreements, but let's make sure that we don't put this country, our federal employees, and more and equally important the 300 million americans who not only depend on those services we provide but mostly are trying to recover from this economy, let's not have act three of the kind of political brinkmanship which starting this spring and then over the debt crisis and now potentially at the end of this month are in effect self-inflicted wounds upon our economy that is struggling so much to recover. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent to do away with the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to add senator mitch mcconnell from kentucky and senator john cornyn from texas as cosponsors of s. 1595, the solidarity with israel act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i encourage all senators to get on board that bill as it's time we start sending some messages that the u.n. will understand. mr. president, it appears that the leader of the palestinian liberation organization and the palestinian authority, mahmud abbas, is going to request that the united nations recognize palestinian as a member state. this action will create a major unnecessary and avoidable obstacle to peace. it is quite simply intolerable. for that reason, yesterday i along with 15 of my colleagues, including my colleague and friend from kentucky, the republican leader, introduced s. 1595, the solidarity with israel act. should the united nations recognize the palestinian state,

this legislation would terminate united states funding for the u.n. i recognize that the consequences from recognizing a palestinian state are severe, but they are appropriate. recognition of a palestinian state at this point would undermine the peace process and some have even questioned its legality. it would be a deeply irresponsible action that brings into further downtown the legitimacy of the united nations as a good-faith actor in securing a more peaceful, free and more democratic world. as i and my colleagues have repeatedly stated on the floor of the senate, the sole means to create a lasting and enduring peace between israel and the palestinians is through direct negotiations. by attempting an end run around these negotiations and make no mistake, that is the the aspiration of this palestinian endeavor, the only result will be to delay the critical

decisions which must be made to obtain a durable peace. what is required is leadership, real leadership to impress upon the palestinians and the world community that if the united nations -- if the united nations capital it you'llates and changes -- capital it let's and changes palestinian's status before a comprehensive peace agreement screeched, there will be consequences. unfortunately, president obama in his speech to the united nations yesterday failed to provide that leadership and take control of this quickly deteriorating situation. accordingly, yesterday i and my colleagues introduced the solidarity with israel act. the united states can and should exercise its security council veto if the palestinians make good on their threat to attempt to change their u.n. status. however, the use of our veto power might not be enough to stop this subterfuge. there are two methods by which the palestinians could attempt to change their united nations status. the first is to the security

council recommend to the general assembly that pliep become a member -- palestine become a member nation. united nations. but in the security council the united states can veto a proposed change. however, the palestinians also have another means to alter their status. they could petition petition the general assembly directly where the united states does not have a veto and seek an upgrade from their current position as a permanent observer entity to a nonobserver state. if this occurs, the palestinians will be in a much better position to manipulate u.n. affiliated agencies such as the criminal court. mr. president, it should go without saying that i will remind this body that the prospect of palestinians being actions against israel's leaders and military forces for defending our sovereign ally's right to exist is completely unacceptable. we should expect more from the united nations but in spite of

its sweeping statements in support of individual rights and peace, it has a mixed record at best when it comes to the treatment of israel, a liberal democracy. the low point of its long and tarnished history on this subject was the general assembly's contemptible 1985 resolution equating zionism with racism. a general upgrade of the palestinians to nonobserver statehood status would be another in a lining of hostile acts towards israel and another hindrance to the peace prospect and process. deterring this outcome is the primary objective of the solidarity with israel act. israel is a friend and ally of the united states. it is a beacon of democracy and liberality in a part of the world that is too frequently lacking in both. though the palestinians have officially recognized israel's right to exist, their rhetoric

continues to bring the strength of this commitment into question. therefore we cannot sit passively while the united nations undermines israel. simply put, if the united nations votes to harm our trusted ally by changing palestine's u.n. status, this legislation would require termination of the united states funding of the united nations until a comprehensive peace agreement is reached with israel. the message of our legislation is also simple: the times for these type of games has ended. we will not stand by and allow a political spectacle to be created which only maligns our ally. the solidarity with israel act seeks to deter those who would engage in false charades and redirect the international community toward promoting the only means to truly achieving a lasting peace, direct negotiations between israel and the palestinians. mr. president, it is my hope

that even greater numbers will join us in this cause, and i think this is an important issue. and i hope that we can get every member of this committee -- of this community, of this united states senate, to join with us in this particular cause. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i ask that my remarks on israel be placed in the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i want to thank senator rubio for his amendment that will constrain spending on t.a.a. by limiting it to workers impacted by free trade agreements negotiated by the u.s. government. as i explained in offering my amendment yesterday to tighten the standard of eligibility for t.a.a., the expanded t.a.a. program will grow and grow and cost more and more taxpayer money. the expanded t.a.a. program

proposed by the chairman is no longer about trade policy but rather, about expanding a domestic spending program. the t.a.a. program proposed by our friends across the aisle extends t.a.a. to service workers and workers impacted by shifts of production or services to any foreign country. in an integrated and rapidly expanding global economy, conceivably all business decisions made at home and abroad could trigger t.a.a.'s generous benefits. as i predicted at the beginning of this debate, many of my friends who support t.a.a. have argued more people use the t.a.a. program when it was expanded in 2009, therefore it must be working. and i strongly reject this argument. spending more money and certifying more workers does not mean a program is succeeding. it simply means that the program is expanding and costing more and more taxpayer dollars. proponents of an expanded t.a.a. program tell us that there is a moral obligation for the government to help mitigate the

cost from job losses associated with increased imports and off-shore outsourcing which often occurs as a result of direct government policies that is trade agreements. why do we choose to reward some americans who lose their jobs due to adjusting to some federal policies in this case trade policy, but not others? even if one were to concede the federal government has some obligation to help those who lose their jobs due to the trade policy actions of the united states, surely workers who lose their jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with federal government actions should not be -- be penalized. and should not be treated improperly. and they should not receive these favorable t.a.a. benefits. i've heard lots of talk about the improvements made in the 2009 t.a.a. stimulus expansion. one word i don't hear much anymore is "globalization"

because if you look at the actual bill, the 2009 stimulus t.a.a. package was actually called tgaa, trade and globalization adjustment assistance. the chairman has cropped dropped the globalization reference in the title of the t.a.a. extension amendment we're attempting to amend today but the legislation retains the untenable expansion of eligibility criteria included in the 2009 stimulus version. the t.a.a. program we will vote on today as offered by the chairman has lost any nexus to u.s. trade policy actions. under the chairman's expanded t.a.a. program, workers who lose their jobs allegedly due to shifts in production to nonfree trade agreement countries will be eligible for the generous t.a.a. benefits. as i highlighted yesterday in my remarks about solyndra in a dynamic u.s. and global economy, businesses can start up and shut down for many reasons that have absolutely

nothing to do with foreign trade and certainly nothing to do with any specific u.s. trade policy. solyndra failed due to a bad business model and an ill conceived federal loan of half a billion dollars in taxpayer moneys, a little bit more than that, not because of trade policy. that solyndra workers may receive t.a.a. benefits highlights the problems with the program. globalization has changed how our businesses operate, both large and small. and all the variables that now impact buying and selling decisions through global supply chains, splitting democrat graftics, different tax regimes and ever-changing investment climates will necessarily create opportunities and challenges for all american businesses. we should help american businesses and farmers compete for the new customers and consumers around the world. and we do this best by prying open those markets, protecting american intellectual property rights and investments, and

strengthening the rule of law. that is why my colleagues and i continue to push the white house to send the three free trade agreements to congress for a vote. so we can help out businesses and farmers better and help our businesses and farmers better compete in the global economy. if we want to help our economy and create jobs, passing the f. t.a.a. should be our first order of business. the best response to globalization is to harness its dynamic growth to our benefit, not to choose winners and losers and give them unproven training and additional income support and health care entitlements. if the purpose of t.a.a. is to help workers adjust to trade policy actions by the government, then only those workers impacted by trade with u.s. free trade agreements countries should be eligible. again, i thank my colleague and friend senator rubio for offering this important amendment and trying to look out for the taxpayer and narrowly

constrain spending on t.a.a. i urge my colleagues to support his amendment and i ask unanimous consent that my remarks on this be placed immediately following senator rubio's remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 650 and make it pending. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes an amendment numbered 650. at the end, ask -- mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i rise today in support of this amendment which i filed yesterday afternoon which deals with what i believe is a very important topic, and that's the high cost of delay when it comes to the pending free trade agreements. i raised this issue yesterday and i want to reemphasize my comments in light of the fact that we'll be voting on this amendment this afternoon. most of the debate the last few days has been about the merits of trade adjustment assistance, but there is another aspect of trade adjustment assistance renewal that we should consider. it is the enact there has been a real cost to america's economy and to the american businesses as a result of the president's strategy to link passage of the three free trade agreements to the renewal of the trade adjustment assistance. this is unfortunate especially considering that even the white house acknowledges that passing the trade agreements agreements is one of the best things we could do to create jobs. according to the business round table, the passage of the trade

agreements will support 250,000 jobs. the u.s. chamber of commerce estimates that as many as 380,000 u.s. jobs could be in jeopardy if we don't pass the free trade agreements. you would think passage of these trade agreements we were signed in 2006 and 2007 would have been an early priority for the obama administration. yet here we are, mr. president, more than two and a half years into this administration and the president still has not made a commitment to send us the trade agreements so we can consider them. now perhaps some might say that it takes time to get an agreement implemented after it's been signed. well, let's consider some recent trade deals that the united states has negotiated. consider the u.s.-australia free trade agreements. this agreement with an important ally was signed on may 18 in 2004 and entered into force on june 1 in 2005. a little over one year later. or consider the u.s.-chile

agreement, this was signed on june 6, 2003, and entered into force on january 1, 2004. only a little over half a year later. or perhaps we should looking at the u.s.-purr rue agreement. this dreament was signed on april 12, 2006, was passed by the democratic-controlled u.s. house in november of 2007, and the democratic-controlled senate in december of 2007. let me repeat, mr. president: a democratic house and democratic senate took up and passed an agreement negotiated and signed by a republican president just over a year and a half after it was signed. so we know that even when the president and the majority in congress come from different parties, we have still been able to implement our trade agreementagreements expeditiouse good of the country. my point is not simply that the three pending trade agreements are long overdiewsm the point is that our process for considering trade agreements did not

envision such long delays between signing and implementation. nevertheless, we need to respond to this unfortunate reality and my amendment helps us do so. it is very simple. under current trade promotion authority procedures, the international trade commission must prepare a report that is submitted to congress no later than 90 days after a trade agreement is signed. however, there's currently no requirement that the i.t.c. conduct a study to assess the negative impact on u.s. businesses when we delay implementation of an agreement, as we have for more than four years with korea, colombia, and pan mavment my amendment would simply require the i.t.c. to assess the negative impact to u.s. businesses if a trade agreement is signed but has not been considered by congress within two years. the i.t.c. study would focus on lost u.s. export opportunities, how the delay has impacted u.s. trade objectives as set out under trade promotion authority, as well as how the delay impacts the protection of u.s.

intellectual property overseas. the study would also estimate the impact on u.s. employment if the trade agreement in question continues to languish. finally, the i. ty c. would be required to update this study in every subsequent year that the trade agreement is not considered by congress or if it is still not entered into force. my amendment follows a very basic principle, mr. president: if the president believes a trade agreement is in america's national and economic interest, he needs to submit it to congress. and if he doesn't submit it to congress, we need to have better information as to what the costs are of that dislai. -- of that dlaivment we think that these trade agreements are important and the president has spent much of the month of august talking about the need to pass them, so clearly he had believes they're important. we need to be more effectively weigh the advantages -- the disadvantages imposed on american businesses and consumers as a result of not

implementing them. i want to emif a shies that this is not a partisan amendment. it will apply to any future president who delays implementation of a trade agreement, democrat or republican. why is it so important? because the global economy in which american businesses compete today is not static. it is dynamic, fast-moving, and ever-changing. as we stand here today, there are more than 100 new free trade agreements currently under negotiation around the world. yet the united states is a party to only one of those negotiations. the transpacific partnership. now, i have with me the i.t.c. report on the u.s.-colombia agreement issued shortly after it was signed. the date on this report, mr. president, is december 2006, over four and a half years ago. would it be helpful to have a recent report that would take into consideration the impact to

u.s. businesses from the canada-colombia trade agreement that recently went into effect or the e.u.-colombia free trade agreement that will go into effect next year? let's consider the cost of delay to just one u.s. company: caterpillar. they are the leading producer of mining equipment and a major u.s. exporter. they export 92% of their american-made large mining trucks. caterpillar's large-truck exports to colombia face a 15% duty which adds about $300,000 to the cost of each of these trucks exported to colombia. just imagine the advantage caterpillar could have had for the last several years over its japanese and chinese competitors if the democratic house had not refused to consider the colombia agreement when president bush

submitted it or if president obama had submitted it promptly upon taking office. but the caterpillar example is just one company. we did an unbiased, objective, and expert study on the cost to all u.s. businesses of delay, and my amendment would accomplish this. consider that u.s. companies are paid more than $5 billion in tariffs to colombia and panama since the trade agreements with these nations were signed more than four years ago. more importantly, u.s. businesses have lost countless business opportunities in korea, colombia, and panama. consider another example:, the market for agricultural products in korea, which is the world's 13th largest economy. korea's tariffs on imported agricultural goods average 54% compared to an average 9% tariff on these imports into the united states. passage of the korea free trade agreement will level the playing field. yet this administration continues to delay sending these

agreements to cofnlg congress. mr. president, at a time of near-record unemployment and slow economic growth, this delay is unacceptable. so i'm going to -- this ongoing delay is having a real impact on american businesses will only get worse as the e.u. agreement has entered into force. the colombian market for agriculture products is another good example of the high cost of delay. in 2010, for the first time in the history of u.s.-colombia trade, the united states lost to argentina its position as colombia's number-one agricultural supplier. consider the story of the 3 million crops we grow in south dakota: corn, wheat, soybeans. the combined share in colombia for these three u.s. agricultural exports has decreased from 78% in 2008 to 28% in 2010.

a staggering decline of 50 percentage points. and this situation will only get worse now that the canada-colombia agreement has taken effect as of august 15 of this year. as gordon stoner, a wheat grower from outlook, montana p, testified before the finance committee earlier this year, "our share of the colombia wheat market has declined from 73% in 2008 to 43% in 2010, ands and industry representatives in colombia indicate we could lose our entire market share following implementation of the canada-colombia free trade agreement. end quote. mr. president, we're living in a global economy where america cannot afford to stand still on trade. there's another cost to the delay in submitting these free trade agreements to congress that we should consider, and this is the loss of trust that we may experience and be creating with new potential

trade agreement partners. if you are an emerging economy today and you have the opportunity to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement with either the european union or the united states, what message is our delay sending to those potential trading partners? unfortunately, the message appears to be that if you negotiate with the e.u., you will get the benefits of an agreement much sooner than if you spend the time and effort to negotiate an agreement with the united states. this is best imemlyified by the negotiations with south korea, a large economy and major market for agricultural goods, manufactured goods as well as services. the u.s.-korea free trade agreement was signed in june of 2007. korea's trade agreement with the e.u. was launched in may of 2007, just one month earlier. we had basically finished the entire negotiation process and wrapped up our agreement with korea by the time that the e.u.

was just launch the beginning of their negotiations with korea. as i mentioned earlier, the e.u.-korea agreement has now taken effect and the president has not even yet submitted our agreement with korea to congress for consideration. again, we're he not creating a favorable impression for any future trade agreement partners. as emerging economies mature, millions of new middle-class consumers enter the global marketplace. this is an impression we cannot afford to let persist. american businesses and exporters need access to these fast-developing markets. imagine if american businesses operated the way that washington, d.c. operates. what if american companies such as apple or i.b.m. waited four or five years to develop their next product? would they continue to outinnovate their foreign competition? of course not. just as united states businesses cannot afford to stand still, the u.s. government cannot

afford is to to* standstill as we have on trade for these past several years. in 1960 exports account ford 6.6% of u.s. g.d.p. today exports account for 12.5% of our g.d.p. exports of u.s. goods and services support over 10 million american jobs. it is long past time that we get back in the game by passing the three pending trade agreements. my amendment, mr. president, will ensure that if we delay, if we fail to act, we will have a better assessment of the cost to american businesses and consumers of that delay. and hopefully, hopefully that information will make us more likely to act with a sense of you are general seufplt my amendment should -- urgency. my amendment should not be controversial. it does not change trade adjustment assistance and should not be something that would act the ability this have legislation to pass the house. it is a forward-looking amendment that will kpwraouft process under which -- improve

the process under which we consider future agreements. it is important we get this done. 2006 is the last time we had an assessment of the impact of not acting on the colombia free trade agreement. earlier today the senator from montana, senator baucus, made some remarks about my amendment, referred to it as a backward-looking amendment. nothing could be further from the truth it felt's not about casting blame. it's not about looking back. it's about improving the process of implementing trade bills by giving better, more comprehensive information on the impact of delay. senator baucus said earlier no one disputes the harm from delaying the agreements. but has the united states government quantified the harm of the delay in a comprehensive fashion so that we know exactly the cost the delays imposing on u.s. and individuals, the impact of u.s. kpwhroeut or protection of u.s. -- employment or

protection of u.s. intellectual property? the answer is no. benefits would be any benefits of renewal of expanded t.a.a. this is mine months away. i hope the agreements will be passed soon and go into effect long before next june. mr. president, this amendment is a forward-looking amendment as it applies to future trade agreements if they are not submitted to congress or considered by congress or entered into force within two years of being signed. this amendment will apply to a trade agreement signed by a future republican president just as much as by a democratic president. if there's a substantial delay in implementing a trade agreement the u.s. signed in good faith with another nation, whatever the reason for the delay may be we as congress should have better information as to the specific impact on u.s. businesses of this delay. that is all. mr. president, would do. it does not affect g.s.p.,

doesn't affect t.a.a. there is no good reason to oppose this amendment and i hope that we can adopt it today. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i'll only be a minute or two. i rise to speak in support of the amendment filed by my colleague from south dakota. this amendment deals with an important issue, namely, the cost of delay when it doms free trade agreements -- when it doms free trade agreements. the president's desire to increase spending on trade adjustment assistance at a time when taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet during a recession makes no sense to me. his strategy to link passage of the f.t.a. to renewal of this expanded t.a.a. program is equally perplexing. t.a.a. is meant to assist workers who have allegedly lost their jobs due to trade but the administration has repeatedly stated that the three pending

trade agreements will create jobs, not cause people to lose them. according to the business round table, the passage of the three pending trade agreements will support 250,000 american jobs. and since jobs will be created rather than lost, it makes no sense to link the passage of an expanded version of trade adjustment assistance to these three f.t.a.'s. the only jobs lost to date have been those caused by the president's refusal to send these f.t.a.'s to congress. his refusal to act has caused u.s. farmers, manufacturers and service providers to cede our market share to our competitors. given the state of the economy under this administration, one would think passage of these trade agreements which were handed to the president wrapped up in a bow by his predecessor would be the first order of business. yet here we are more than halfway into this administration, and the president has not even made a commitment to send awes trade

agreement so we can consider them. my colleague's amendment would help us assess the impact of the president's delay and future presidents as well on the american economy. the amendment would require the i.t.c. to assess the negative impact to the u.s. if a trade agreement is not considered by congress within two years. the study would highlight lost u.s. export opportunities, the impact on the protection of u.s. intellectual property overseas, the impact on u.s. employment to date and the prospective impact on u.s. employment if the agreements are not sent do think. if the president believes these trade agreements will create jobs, he needs to submit them to congress. it is absurd they're still sitting on the president's desk while our companies and workers lose market share to our competitors in colombia, south korea and panama. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and i ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senator from new hampshire be permitted to make her remarks at this time.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i thank my colleague from utah. i agree with both of my colleagues who have spoken that we live in a globalized economy and that it's important for us to make sure that we have the benefits of that globalized economy here in america. it has offered us incredible new opportunities, but they are opportunities that have not been shared equally across our economy and across our workforce. i believe that when given a level playing field, the american workforce has shown it can outcompete and outinnovate any economy in the world. and that's the way we're going to get our economy moving again, by unleashing the power of american entrepreneurship. i've spoken before about ending the false debate between

so-called free trade and fair trade. i think we need competitive trade, a policy that focuses on growing u.s. exports, opening new markets for u.s. companies, job training for our workforce, and tough enforcement of trade rules. we can help our workforce compete by giving them access to foreign markets. fully 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states, but only 1% of small businesses are doing business outside of the united states, are exporting their products. increasing our exports is vital to the long-term health of our economy. but at the same time we have to acknowledge that trade creates new challenges for many american companies and american workers, and we have to understand that no graph that shows g.d.p. growth is a comfort to a mother who suddenly can't feed her

family because her factory is shut down. and no statistic about market efficiency is going to pay a young man's rent when his company moves its engineering operations overseas. when congress promotes international trade and enters into a compact with all american workers that they will not be left behind, competitive trade means making sure that all of us can compete. for nearly 50 years the trade adjustment assistance program has been lending a hand to workers faced with the negative consequences of international trade. it's been supported by liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans. its premise is simple. if you lose your job to foreign trade, we'll help you prepare for a new career and we'll help keep you afloat while you train. over the last two years almost 500,000 americans have begun a new chapter in their lives with

the help of trade adjustment assistance. in 2009 congress enacted some commonsense reforms to the t.a.a. program. for years americans who lost their jobs to indian or china -- to india or china were denied access to this program because the united states doesn't have a specific trade agreement with either country. given the growing economic power of those two nations, that left an unacceptable number of americans facing trade effects on their own. so in 2009 we changed the program so that t.a.a. supported all americans whose jobs were sent overseas. but those reforms have unfortunately expired. this week we have the opportunity to restore them, and we should. the 2009 reforms also updated the t.a.a. program to protect workers in service industries

tphoeugs those in -- in addition to those in manufacturing. 50 years ago when the program was created, no one could have imagined the advances in technology that would allow foreign service workers and engineers to compete with our own domestic workers in those fields. this week we have an opportunity to restore this 21st century perspective to the trade adjustment assistance program. i want to share a couple of stories about new hampshire workers who have benefited from trade adjustment assistance. the first is a story about joann sanshagrin who worked at a company called thermalloyd for 32 years. she was a buyer for the company but the company was threatened by several nations including china. she knew she needed to get a new job before she was laid off. under the old t.a.a. terms, the ones we're operating under now,

she wouldn't qualify for help under t.a.a. but under the 2009 tproerls, joe i -- reforms, joann sought and received training as a licensed nursing assistant. she completed training in june and last month she began a job in her new career and she loves it. t.a.a. has supported her through this process. it's paid for her training. so instead of being unemployed, she is now a dynamic part of our economy, working in one of its fastest-growing fields. another new hampshire worker named robert ossono who is a veteran, had worked for 21 years making paper at the mills in gore ham and burlin. the paper industry has been devastated by offshore competition. as the president knows, we've lost so many of our mills throughout northern new england. when those mills in burlin and goreham closed, robert was able to use trade adjustment

assistance to get his commercial drivers license at the white mountains community college. he recently started a new full-time job with a paving and contracting job. but t.a.a. doesn't just help out individual workers. it also helps small businesses who are being hurt by international trade. new england forest products is a hardwood manufacturing company that's been operating in greenfield, new hampshire, since 1993, but during the recent recession they found themselves losing business to cheap chinese lumber. in search of answers, they applied to the local trade adjustment assistance center for help. they worked with t.a.a. to develop a marketing strategy and advertising materials that now help the small business sell their hardwood flooring and other products directly to consumers. in part because of this important program, new england forest products saw sales increase 28% in the following

year. this isn't just one encouraging story. of the 18 businesses in new hampshire that received trade adjustment assistance in the last 14 years, all 18 are still operating and many are adding employees. these are the kinds of stories that the trade adjustment assistance program makes possible, but only if we sustain these critical reforms and strengthen t.a.a.'s role as both a critical safety net and a driver of the american economy for decades to come. i urge my colleagues to support the trade adjustment assistance amendment when it comes to the floor for a vote later today. thank you very much, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i just want to emphasize one final time as we get closer to votes on these amendments, obviously the importance of getting the free trade agreements passed and put into force, but also the importance of understanding that as we move into the future that we not make the mistakes that we made with respect to these agreements, and that is to let them languish for literally years. and at the same time be losing market share, be losing jobs for americans and be losing market opportunities for american businesses. and again, i want to point out just a couple of things that i think that really personalize this. one is, as i mentioned in my earlier remarks, you have a company like caterpillar which makes large mining trucks, exports 92% of them and pays a a $300,000 per-truck tariff to get into the colombian market.

you think of a country like south korea where we have the 13th largest economy in the world. they are a big importer of american agricultural goods. it's 54% right now is the average tariff on goods that are exported from the united states, agricultural products exported from here to korea, 9% is the average tariff on their goods coming into this country. 54-9. that is an incredible disadvantage, putting american businesses at tremendous disadvantage relative to the countries around the world with whom they have to compete. and at the same time that these trade agreements have been languishing here now for over four years, the other countries have stepped in. the european union, australia, canada have stepped in and filled the vacuum that we have left, and as a consequence, american businesses have been hurt and have been hurt profoundly, and more importantly, as we sit here in this economy that we're in today and talk about the importance of job creation, there isn't

anything that we could do that would create jobs more quickly, probably, than get these trade agreements enacted. it means thousands of jobs for americans. it means business opportunities for american businesses overseas, and it means market share that we should be maintaining or perhaps even acquiring that we're losing as a result of not being -- not having these agreements entered into force after they were negotiated these many years ago. so what my amendment does is we go look prospectively into the future, it requires that we know specifically quantitatively what the impacts are of delay when it comes to getting these free trade agreements not only ratified by the congress but entered into force with these other countries. i think it's critical information that we need to know. we need to know what harm, what economic consequence as a result of these trade agreements being delayed, and i just hope we will get a bipartisan support for

this amendment today that doesn't do anything to alter t.a.a., it doesn't do anything to alter g.s.p., it doesn't do anything to affect passage of this agreement in the house, but it will as we look forward into the future i think make it much more clear to us what these economic impacts are with regard to these trade agreements and our delay in getting them implemented. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i rise to speak about the amendment that's been introduced by the senator from texas, senator cornyn. i think it's amendment number 634. i will just take a few minutes. i know my colleague from indiana is waiting here. but just a few minutes to speak to it, if i may. the senator from texas has introduced an amendment that really takes an unprecedented step here in the senate, and that is the step of actually

requiring the president by mandate with respect to one weapons system, one singular amendment to sell a specific weapon to another country. specifically, the senator wants to take the unprecedented step of requiring the president of the united states to sell 66 new f-16 fighter aircraft to taiwan. now, the amendment mandates the sale of these new aircraft despite the fact that just yesterday, the president and the administration notified the congress of their intention to provide taiwan with nearly nearly $6 billion additional in goods and services on top of money that they have already provided to taiwan, including, mr. president, upgrades to taiwan's current fleet of 145

f-16's. now, i will stand by my record of 26-plus years here of voting for the appropriate defense relationship with respect to taiwan and china, and we have always respected the taiwan relations act, and i think we have consistently stood by taiwan and kept faith with that act. without doubt, the growing military disparity between china and other countries in the region as well as taiwan is something that we need to be thinking about, taking into account as we contemplate the long-term future of all of those relationships in that region. but that said, i am -- i am opposed to this specific

amendment, and i believe that senator baucus who has already spoken in opposition to it and others, i believe, are opposed to it for two appropriate reasons. one, the substance of the amendment itself, and i'll speak to that, but also plain and simply, this is not the right vehicle on which to address this issue. consideration of t.a.a. is part of -- everybody understands this here -- a very complicated approach to what senator thune just commented on as a much too long awaited dealing with several trade agreements that a lot of us want to pass and that we think we should pass, and passage of this t.a.a. proposal without these other issues coming to it which would put it in jeopardy is critical to being

able to help american workers as well as to line up those three pending trade agreements, which will create jobs in the united states and which will also enhance our security. so if we were to pass the cornyn amendment, which we know the administration strongly opposes, that would imperil this very carefully crafted jobs package that we are considering. on that basis alone, i would urge colleagues to vote against this amendment, but i believe there are powerful substantive reasons for why this amendment shouldn't pass just on its own. mandating the sale of one particular weapon is not the way for the united states to respond or deal with or manage the complex national security challenge of that reason and the

complexity of the relationship with taiwan. now, i would remind colleagues that the $6 billion in new arms sales of various kinds, including a major upgrade package to all of the 145 f-16's is an enormous important package which taiwan wants and needs and which taiwan believes will bring it up to par with respect to those systems and the needs to be able to defend itself. i think we have to remember that ever since president nixon opened the door to china nearly 40 years ago, the united states has worked very carefully to promote peace and stability in the taiwan strait. the taiwan relations act has long governed our policy towards taiwan because we don't have a former diplomatic relationship or a former treaty.

with respect to arms sales, let me share with my colleagues what the t.r. says. it shall be the policy of the united states to quote provide taiwan with arms of a defensive character and maintain the capacity of the united states to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion which would jeopardize the security of the people of taiwan. finally, the t.r.a. obligates the united states to provide such defense goods and services to taiwan as are necessary to enable taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. the obama administration and the committees of jurisdiction here in the senate and the house with respect to it take the provisions of that -- of that act very seriously. the administration has carefully

analyzed, as have we, the military balance across the taiwan strait, and we have consulted closely with the government of taiwan as to how do you best meet taiwan's defensive needs. on wednesday, the administration formally notified congress of its intend to send a very substantial retrofit package that would upgrade the current fleet, as i mentioned. there are 145 f-16's that taiwan has today, and that taiwan relies on today for its current defense needs. these upgrades include state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry, active electronically scanned radars, targeting systems, the aimed air-to-air

missiles and precision-guided munitions. so i don't believe there is any question but that the united states of america is going to be -- is now and will continue to be in full compliance with the requirements of the t.r.a. but it also makes clear, this package, that support for the -- for taiwan is not a partisan issue, mr. president. the bush administration in its eight years, two full terms, notified congress of the sale of roughly $15 billion total in arms sales to taiwan. with the announcement of the sale that the administration is making of the additional items that taiwan needs, the administration, the obama administration, in less than three years, has approved the sale of over $12 billion in arms

to taiwan. so, mr. president, you have got got $15 billion over eight years from the bush administration, you have got $12 billion over three years for the obama administration. moreover, the administration's administration's $5.8 billion retrofit and training proposal, the necessary parts, equipment, training, logistical support, all of them provide a cost-effective upgrade of taiwan's current status, and most importantly, what it would do is elevate taiwan's current fleet of f-16's to a level of capability consistent with the most advanced export variance of this aircraft. so let's understand where we are, what the state of play is. taiwan has an urgent defense need today.

they have 145 aircraft. we already sold them. we're prepared to provide them an upgrade that brings those aircraft up to the total state of the art of the most advanced export variant that we are allowed to export to another country, and it will prevent these 145 aircraft from becoming obsolete. this is the most sensible, cost-effective effective way to provide an upgrade and to provide taiwan with the capacity that it needs. now, to the degree that people are thinking jobs in the united states of america, what about selling, well, a lot of us would never believe we would ever use the defense sales, weapon sales. if you want to create jobs, there are a lot more effective ways of creating jobs. but to whatever degree that

anybody wants to measure this by that -- by that standard, the fact is that a $5.8 billion sale announced yesterday will be welcome news to the workers of lockheed martin, northrop grumman, raytheon, pratt whitney, and many other defense firms. i emphasize again, it's not the rationale for the sale and none of us should resort to those kinds of sales for the purpose of jobs, but if that's going to be a measurement here or consideration in anybody's mind, make no mistake the $6 billion that the president has proposed will have its own impact. finally, let me point this out to colleagues, and i think it's an important consideration. nothing in the proposed upgrade package will preclude the united states from providing new f-16's as we go down the road, as they may be necessary as a judgment is made about them or any other similar platform to taiwan in

the future, and the administration has taken pains to make clear to congress and to taiwan that the approval of this sale does not and will not prejudice any future decision on new aircraft. yesterday, the president of taiwan said that the upgrade to taiwan's existing f-16 ab jets are aimed at maintaining the country's self-defense capabilities while pursuing peaceful development across the taiwan strait. he said of the upgrade package, package, --, this is the president of taiwan saying --" we have to develop peaceful ties with mainland china but we haven't for one second let our guard down when it comes to taiwan's security." believe the taiwanese believe that they're letting their guard down, i don't think they believe that we are not meeting their needs. obviously congress has an important role to play in

determining how to meet those needs. but i don't think -- i don't think that we should, in the wake of the evidence here, make an independent judgment outside of what is already happening. we certainly shouldn't blindly defer to the executive on taiwan arms sales but i think to compel the executive, to make a specific arm sale to a specific country measured against the steps already taken and the steps being taken, would be an unprecedented intervention by the united states senate under circumstances where there just has not been made the kind of compelling urgent argument that that's the only way to proceed. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment when the time comes for us to vote on it. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i yield myself five minutes out of my remaining time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i thank my colleague from indiana. i just want to respond briefly to the senator from massachusetts. this isn't an assessment that i have made that taiwan needs these aircraft. this is one made by the department of defense and there -- in their 2011 report on military -- china's growing military power. and they detailed the increasingly precarious situation in the taiwan strait, stating that china seeks the capability to deter taiwan independence and influence taiwan to settle the dispute on beijing's terms. so it's clear from both the press reports from the state newspaper, the very bellicose comments that this is really an attempt by the mainland china, the people's republic of china,

to intimidate not only taiwan but also the united states. and we should not give in to that intimidation. this chart which i've pointed to earlier demonstrates the growing imbalance in the taiwan strait. this is why these additional aircraft are needed. the red one is 2,300 operational combat aircraft from the people's republic of china versus 490 operational aircraft aircraft, combat aircraft for the taiwanese. the the senator from massachusetts is correct that the upgrades to this ex tent, that the upgrades are welcome on the 145 f-16's we've previously sold to taiwan, but it's not adequate. because 100 of these aircraft currently are operational by taiwan are obsolete and going to be retired. taiwan has intended that the new

f-16 c and d series to replace the fleet of f-5's, previously sold u.s. aircraft from the 1975-1985 range, which are now old and obsolete, and then the french mirages, the french-made 2005 fighters. so 100 of these planes demonstrated here of the 490 are going to be retired and the 66 aircraft that are the subject of this amendment will replace some of those retired vehicles. so i don't think thinking about the future of our relationship with taiwan or problems we may see on the horizon is enough. we need to do something now. and i would also point out that you can't just take the production line at lockheed martin and basically eliminate it because there are no further demands or contracts for f-16

sales. you'll have to basically -- all the personnel, the 2,300 people directly involved in those jobs will be reassigned or fired, let go, because there's no contracts in place as late as the fourth quarter of this year for new f-16's. i think looking at this down the road doesn't take into account the current loss of jobs or the problem of disbanding this production line which cannot easily be reconstituted if there are no contracts including the sale of these 66. with that, i would reserve the balance of my time and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, could i inquiry what the allocation of time here? the senator from vermont has generously yielded me the opportunity to speak for a few moments. i want to make sure i don't get the situation mixed up here so that we have run out of time. what's the allocation?

the presiding officer: the senator from florida, senator rubio, has 17 minutes. the senator from south dakota, senator thune, has 9 minutes. mr. coats: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that i just take six minutes of senator rubio's time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent upon completion of that i be allowed seven minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, i'd like to respond to some of these statements that have been made relative to the continuing resolution which hopefully we'll be voting on today, if not today, tomorrow. there is no question on either side of the aisle here as to the need for emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year

2011 disaster relief. there is agreement on both sides of the aisle that fema is short of money to meet immediate needs in this fiscal year, 2011, which expires at the end -- at midnight on september 30. and so the disaster relief fund is very low, and on september 9 the president requested $500 million in emergency appropriations to finish out the immediate needs between now and the end of this fiscal year, which is just a little more than a week away. and that has been provided and taken care of. as we know, the house is working on sending the senate a continuing resolution that includes this emergency funding, and more, more than the president's $500 million request. the house c.r. is expected to include $774 million for fema, the federal emergency management

agency plus an adecember adecember $226 million for the army corps of engineers for emergency flood control. this emergency funding is not covered by the budget control act, so the house in accordance with procedures that we've been going forward this year and trying to be as careful with taxpayers' money as we can, the house offered an offset for that. that was defeated yesterday in the house. i think they're working on a bill now to hopefully bring it over to us with some minor revisions. while this funding covers fema's immediate needs as requested by the president, through the rest of the fiscal year, the house bill also includes additional funding at the current level of $2.65 billion in fiscal year 2012 for fema's disaster relief fund which will provide the necessary funding to deal with the requests and make sure that people get the support that they

need from losses in the various disasters through this continuing resolution period, which will go to about november 18. it's important to note that despite some of the things that have been said, republicans support disaster funding. it's critical to respond to the many disasters that have affected so many states over the past few months. we support that effort. however, the additional funding for fiscal year 2012 sought by senator reid and senate democrats is not needed immediately. in fact, the president has not requested immediate passage of any of this additional funding beyond what is needed to provide fema what it needs to address the situations and to make the necessary payments between now and the expiration of this current resolution, which we'll be voting on here today or tomorrow. now, this is not to say that we

should not consider additional disaster relief. we will. there are many challenges out for states that -- that states face in response to the disasters that have struck across the country. my own home state of indiana has experienced floods that merited a disaster declaration from the president earlier this year. we are in no sense in the same plight as many states that have had disastrous -- disasters far and above what we have faced if my own state. but it's important to note that as a nation we need to step forward and dress dreas these immediate needs but we have a process in place to do this. the budget control act that congress passed in august does allow a process for providing disaster relief in fiscal year 2012 through a disaster cap adjustment. as a result from that, the senate appropriations committee of which i'm the ranking member on homeland security subcommittee which oversees

fema, that committee has been considering the fiscal year 2012 bill and has included disaster assistance where appropriate pursuant to the disaster cap adjustment in the budget control act. the key words here are "where appropriate." there may be looming disasters in front of us. we hope not but we're still in hurricane season and those -- we need to be in a position to be able to provide additional funding should those disasters occur. but there's no need, there is no need to go forward with what senator reid has proposed, and that is dumping a lot of money that has not yet been certified as needed and do an expenditure particularly at the time when everybody dollar of expenditure needs to be carefully weighed in terms of our current fiscal situation. some have noted while the c.r. may cad adequately fund fema it does not address other agencies that need funding. if that is the case why has not

the president requested these additional funds immediately? on september 9, i quote the president, he sent the congress his request for additional fema funding including the -- i ask unanimous consent for just one more minute. thank you. if this is the case, why did he not ask for this? don't want need to include this additional funding to meet the needs of the people for the disasters that have already occurred. this funding necessary to do that is included in the house bill which we'll be voting on. republicans want to ensure that the communities devastated by disasters receive the resources that will help them rebuild. we recognize that american citizens have had their lives turned upside down by mother nature and the c.r. will provide adequate disaster relief through november in accordance with the president's request and fema's stated needs. as a result, there is no need to add all of this additional

assistance immediately as part of the c.r. and i urge members to support passage of the c.r. that the house will be sending us shortly. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have spoken many times here on the floor, as has the distinguished presiding officer, about the disaster and tragedy vermont faced with hurricane irene. we all learned with profound sadness that master sergeant john stocker, the vermont air national guard suffered a fatal heart attack while working on a road reconstruction project in cavendish, vermont. he was in the vermont civil engineering squadron.

of course in vermont we mourn that loss and our thoughts and prayers are with sergeant stocker's wife, christine, and their children. i told her that when i spoke with her today and told her that i would talk about him on the floor and his sacrifice. it struck me in what happened how much it says about vermont and our national guard. sergeant stocker and so many of us fellow guard members have answered the call to help their neighbors in need. when sergeant stocker passed away, his troops gathered. they wanted to know how best to honor his memory that day. and they decided to keep right on working to help their neighbors in cavendish. quote, it is what sean would have wanted us to do, close

quote, they said. sergeant stocker and these other troops put their country first and do whatever the mission requires. we have talked so often of the loss and suffering in vermont in the aftermath of hurricane irene, and of course one key component of this response is the skillful and tireless work of the vermont national guard. from the very beginning of the disaster up until today the vermont national guard has been deployed to help vermonters in need. i spoke to secretary panetta last night here in washington. i told the secretary wit what great joe vermont guard is doing. let me show you -- my colleagues a photograph. this -- this photo is from a

vermont guard airdrop supply to a town. that town was totally cut off. the only way we could get these supplies in was to bring them by helicopter. in the days following, the vermont guard immediately went into action making sure victims received emergency supplies. helicopters air-droppinged into and water. of course our guard leadership reached out to other state guards through vermont's emergency management assistance compacts for help with long-term projects. i talked with the senators from maine. they told me how happy their guard was to be able to come down and help out. so it demonstrates the versatility of the guard. in addition, meeting the immediate needs of the vermont guard has taken on other projects such as debris removal and road construction. as in so many other states, when vermont has a need, our national guard is there.

often they're the first to ariervetion the last to leave, and the guards who come to vermont to help us -- ohio, maine, west virginia, virginia, south carolina, illinois, a few of the guard units that come to the vermont state, all of the guard units in the area, from new york on through, they said we're here, call us, tell us what you need. that's one of the things we love about the national guard whvment one state needs help, every state steps up. one thing vermont did need in the immediate aftermath of irene was helicopters. the distinguished presiding officer and i helicoptered around the state. but it was regrettable that our state needed more airlift in part -- why? because many of our blackhawk helicopters were still in iraq, following a recent deployment, the most modern blackhawks in the fleet. but ner they were in iraq. in the season of war, we should take a moment to remember the troops and equipment are sent overseas. they're not going to be

available to help out here at home if we need them in an emergency. like that deployment of equipment, every dollar we spend on conflict in iraq and afghanistan is one less dollar we have to invest in recovery and rebuilding here in america. isn't it time to choose investment here at home first? when i hear people tell me, we can't pay for disasters in america unless we take money out of education or medical research or other things that americans need, but we can sign a blank check to rebuild iraq and afghanistan, i'm saying, let's worry about america. americans need help. americans need help. we're asking for a tiny percentage of what some spend on a credit card for iraq and afghanistan. come on home. america needs us. citizens of our state have suffered because of national

disaster, and men and women of the guard who have come to their aid deserve nothing less. so what we've done for the last couple decades -- for the last decade: two wars waged on the nation's credit card. well, we didn't totally ignore taxes during that time, even though every other war the war has been in, we've always raised the tax to pay for t we did pause to throw our self a party on the former tax breaks tilted toward the -- every other war we've tried to pay for it. this war we said, let's borrow the money. now after all these years of funding wars and rebuilding countries overseas, the leadership of the house of representatives in the continuing resolution the body defeated brazenly told the

american people we can no longer afford to come to the aid of americans in need, our fellow citizens here at home. no, now we need to offset the costs of rebuilding america by cutting help to someone else. this is alice in wonderland. they ask for the wealthy to pay their fair share? no. are they asking oil and gas companies with record profits quarter after quarter to sacrifice any of their tax giveaways? no, they are not. are they asking those people who are getting tax deduction breaks for shipping american jobs overseas? no. that's wrong. we can't ask these suffering people to sacrifice if we refuse to ask those. we're giving every break possible to the very wealthiest among us.

it's unconscionable. iit is not the american way. ist thwe have always dealt with disaster bills together. we've worked across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship. vermonters have not asked why do we help out an earthquake in california? we do it. vermonters don't ask, why do we help out in louisiana or texas or virginia virginia. we do it because we are the united states of america. we work together. we can't afford to stop that tradition. the decision to inject politics and political point-scoring into disaster relief is a new low for congress, a congress already scoring rohrs for unfavorability. leader reid is right to call for a continuing resolution that

includes a emergency disaster relief package that will get aid to all 50 states suffering from the effects of unprecedented natural disasters and acknowledging the fact none of us could predict where the next disaster is going to occur. except that every one of us in our life experience know there will be something. we can try to rebuild iraq and afghanistan and nobody questions that. rebuild america. rebuild america. so i encourage my colleagues here, the house of representatives to do the right thing for people who need our help and move forward with leader reid's bill. fellow americans need their support. now is the time to act. let me show you another photograph here, my colleagues. again, look at our national

guard working to put these roads in. they're stretched thin. the nationa national guards allr this country, so many of them serve over in iraq and afghanistan. these are talented engineers, talented men and women, people who know what to do, have the equipment to do things that nobody else can do, certainly not in our little state. let's start spending some time worrying about america. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the time to be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the rough roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the casey-reid amendment. over the past several days we've had the opportunity to publicly discuss and debate a number of serious flaws in the trade adjustment assistance program and its proposed expansion. perhaps the most egregious aspect is voting to spend more taxpayer dollars on an expanded domestic spending program of dubious value at the very same time our colleagues on the supercommittee are scrutinizing every penny in federal spending in a bipartisan effort to get our federal deficit under control. it makes me wonder whether it body understands the gravity of the deficit we are facing. as a country, we are simply

spending more money than we have. if it continues we're going to be bankrupt. we'll bankrupt our country and leave behind a grim future for our children and grandchildren. now, you'll hear many of my colleagues talk about how important it is to spend this money, and i'm sure a lot of them will feel good about their vote. but we all know that the good feeling that comes from buying things we can't afford is fleeting. while the debt accrued hangs like a dark cloud over our daily lives. we simply cannot afford to continue to spend money our country does not have. this is why i, for one, am voting "no." despite my concerns, i have convinced that this amendment and bill will pass. this spring the president made it clear that if this domestic spending program is not expanded and approved, he would abandon our allies in colom colombia, p, and south korea and cede these

growing markets to our foreign competitors. how short-sighted. while the president may have been willing to accept that outcome, many of my colleagues were not. they stepped up to the plate and vowed to support efforts to move the process forward. as a result, the deck in favor of this bill was stacked long ago. still i am glad that we have had an open debate on the merits of this program. earlier this year the president attempted to shield t.a.a. from strict scrutiny and debate by jamming it into the south korea implementing bill. doing so would have been a clear abuse of u.s. trade laws and would have denied the senate an opportunity to fairly debate and amend at that tavmen t.a.a. the american people deserve better than this and finance committee republicans fought hard to make sure this did not happen. even though the deck was stacked against our amendments long ago, this discussion has been a useful exercise.

it has been over nine years since the senate engaged in a real trade debate on the senate floor. senators deserve an opportunity to have their voices heard. we are doing what the american people expect us to do, openly discussing problems and in doing so hoping hopefully to resolve them. during this debate, a number of amendments were offered that enabled senators to go on record regarding their trade priorities and core beliefs. for the first time in years, we were able to draw clear distinctions between rhetoric and action. of course there has been debate about the merits of the free trade agreements them. as i noted earlier, th -- they y support the i f.t.a.'s in suppot for something else. that turned to be a demand for

more spending. i am concerned this pattern will continue. as nation we cannot afford to hold our international economic competitiveness hostage to unrelated demands for more spending or for more liberal social agenda. during the course of this debate, i have expressed my concerns that the real cost of the t.a.a. expansion bill is unknown. recall that benefits under t.a.a. are paid out on torture unemployment insurance which is supposed to take care of those who are oust work. imawf as more and more people take advantage of the program and as the number of weeks of regular unemployment insurance contract, the cost of this entitlement program could spiral out of control. so a number of amendments were offered who would help constrain its future growth so that we do not end up sticking the american taxpayer with another out-of-control spend pravment every single one of these amendments were rejected by my

colleagues across the aisle. their passion for spending runs so deep that even an amendment by my friend and colleague, senator kyl, which implemented one of president obama's recommendations to cut t.a.a. funding for firms, was rejected. at a time when the supercommittee is struggling to cut spending in areas such as defense and health care, i find it astonishing that my colleagues cannot support eliminating a program that even president obama agrees should be cut. that's a true rarity. my colleagues -- that is, that president obama agrees to any kind of a cut. not that my colleagues won't support eliminating a program; that we know has happened around here for all of the 35 years i've been in the united states senate. but even when president obama,

one of the biggest spenders in the history of the world, agrees that program should be cut, they won't even do that. my colleagues across the aisle also chose to reject an amendment to provide their own president with the authority to negotiate a new trade agreement. do you believe that? we all know that the authority to negotiate trade agreements expired years ago. since then td states has been fervently sitting on the sidelines while other countries negotiate agreements all around the world. everyone knows that if you are not in the game, you don't even have a small chance to win. right now the united states is not in the game. while it is true that the president is in the process of negotiating an agreement to create a transpacific partnership, we all know that the khapbzs of it actually -- the chances it have actually succeeding are nonexistent without trade promoting authority. while protrade sounds good from

the other side, when it comes down to concrete action, president obama and his democratic colleagues are absent once again. i am perhaps most disturbed by their rejection of my amendment which would have made the expansion of this domestic program contingent upon submission, approval and signature of our pending free trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. this amendment simply held president obama accountable. the president said that there would be no f.t.a.'s unless congress passed t.a.a. the insinuation is that if congress does pass t.a.a., the president will submit support and sign all three f.t.a.'s. yet even today we do not know if that is the case. my understanding is that the white house has given no indication that they will actually submit these agreements for a vote. now that is truly pathetic, but they're willing to spend more. they're willing to pass t.a.a. so they can spend more regardless of whether they're

sincere about doing these free trade agreements which will provide almost 250,000 new jobs in this country, or at least jobs. my amendment simply calls for presidential accountability. but even presidential accountability was rejected by the other side. once again, protrade rhetoric of the past several months has shown to be nothing but a facade. i will be voting against the amendment to expand t.a.a., and if it is approved i will be voting against final passage of the bill. i simply cannot condone more spending on a program of dubious value at a time when our nation is clearly broke. i remain hopeful that president obama will submit our pending free trade agreements to congress. if he does and they are approved, i am confident that president obama and his team will drape themselves in the protrade flag and claim responsibility for moving these agreements forward. but the fact of the matter is

that the authority to negotiate these agreements and the actual negotiation of these agreements themselves is due to the hard work and late nights of president bush and his team. this is one instance where president obama can rightly place responsibility at the feet of his predecessor. my republican colleagues and i put forward a number of amendments during the week to constrain government spending, open foreign markets for our products and hold the president accountable for his rhetoric. unfortunately, every single one was defeated mostly along party lines. but we will not be deterred. we will continue to fight against out-of-control government spending. we will continue to fight for presidential authority to open foreign markets to u.s. exports. we will continue to fight for transparency and accountability in our international trade policy. and while we may not win the battle today, i am confident that we will win in the end. over the next year i plan to conduct rigorous oversight over

president obama's trade policy. if these agreements are eventually submitted and approved, i will work hard to make sure that they enter into force quickly. i also plan to conduct extensive and continued oversight over the operation of the trade adjustment assistance program. i am convince that had it is a flawed program and that strong congressional oversight will help expose those flaws. i will also work hard to make sure that our next president -- whoever that may be -- has the authority to negotiate strong trade agreements that tear down barriers to american exports. over the past several days many of my colleagues expressed interest in updating this authority. i welcome that interest and want to express my sincere desire to work with them to immediately see that trade promotion authority is renewed. our nation and our workers cannot afford to wait.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that we divide the quorum call equally between both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: may i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent votes with respect to amendments and passage of h.r. 2832, the g.s.p. bill, occur at 4:30 p.m., that all after the first vote be ten-minute votes, prior to the vote in relation to the cornyn amendment, there be ten minutes equally divided, with the remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. finally the amount of additional time in this agreement as for debate on the bill and amendments prior to the votes be

equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. mr. baucus: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: and his

education secretary will announce that the education secretary will begin a process to grant waivers to states from the provisions of no child left behind. no child left behind, of course, is a law passed by bipartisan -- with bipartisan support in 2001 and 2002 pie the congress -- by the congress and we're in its ninth year of its implementation. it needs to be fixed. and congress needs to act to fix it. and republican senators and members of the house have already offered legislation that will begin to do that, which

i'll talk about in a minute. but my purpose in coming to the floor today is to talk about the waivers that the secretary of education may begin to -- may begin the to -- to approve. and my request of the secretary and of the president is that as they establish a waiver process and as they begin to approve waivers, that they exercise restraint and not take unto themselves responsibilities that are the responsibilities of congress. the truth is, the secretary has the states over a barrel. we have about 100,000 public schools in america and as he has correctly said, about 80% of them under the current law are going to be deemed as failing schools. now, the president and the secretary and we republicans would like to take the

responsibility for determining which schools are succeeding or failing, and put that back in the hands of the states. we would like to take the responsibility for determining which teaches hers are highly qualified and put that back on the states. that's a part of the legislation that we've introduced. substantially those ideas are ideas that the president and the secretary either have advanced or agree with, so we have a lot of agreement about this. but the secretary has the states over a barrel. most governors want a waiver. almost every state from missouri, from tennessee, from georgia, they'll be asking for a waiver. and what i hope the secretary will do is look at the applications and if those applications by the states for exemption from the requirements of no child left behind, if they would enhance student

achievement, then approve then. and if they would not advance student achievement, well, then deny them. but the restraint i'm asking for is that the secretary not use this occasion when the states are over a barrel to become a national school board and begin to impose on the states requirements that congress would not do and that states ought to be deciding for themselves. this is the request of the states themselves. the states have been working over the last ten years in very good ways to take steps forward. they've created common standards. they've created tests to meet those standards. the chief state school officers are in the middle of creating an accountability system. and a lot of progress has been made in what i like to call the holy grail of elementary and secondary education, finding a way to reward outstanding teaching by connecting it to

student achievement. something that tennessee became the first state to do when i was governor in 1983 and 1984 and which many school districts and many states are trying to do. so the difference of opinion that i have, potentially, with this secretary and this president on what to do about no child left behind may seem very small. because let me compliment the president. let me compliment the secretary in this way. they've stuck their necks out and taken some positions to help make better schools that aren't popular with their natural constituents, and i admire that. i respect that. they have advocated a number of changes in the schools, for example, getting rid of the adequate yearly progress provision, moving out of washington the responsibility for deciding whether schools are succeeding or failing, changing the highly qualified teacher provision so that states can figure that out through

evaluation systems. all of those are things that we agree on, republicans and democrats. where we may disagree and the reason why we haven't advanced head with bipartisan legislation on no child left behind is what i would call the difference between washington mandates and approving state requests. or one might even say the difference between a national school board and giving states the responsibility for making their own decisions. here's an example of what i mean. there's agreement as i said, that this process called adequate yearly progress for the 100,000 schools -- there are a lot of schools -- shouldn't be decided here. it is now. you read in the paper that such and such school is not succeeding or it is failing. it's a good idea for tennessee

or for missouri or for california to set performance targets to replace adequate yearly progress. but those performance targets ought to be in the state's application and ought not to be required and defined by the u.s. department of education in washington which can turn it into a national school board. growth models. the idea of giving states and schools and school districts credit for making progress, sort of an a for effort to go along with an a for achievement. that's a really good idea. president bush in his administration began to permit that exception from no child left behind. but superintendents ought not to be flying to washington from nashville and denver and different parts of america asking anybody in washington to approve their growth model or even be required to have one. if they have some other way to

decide whether schools are succeeding or failing. or let me take another example that i have a very deep interest in. teacher and principal evaluation related to student achievement. tennessee became the first state in 1984 to pay teachers more for teaching well. up till then not one state paid teachers one penny more for teaching more -- not one penny more for teaching well. in my office this morning were the two principals of the year from tennessee, and the three representatives of tennessee education association, and four out of the five were voluntarily a part of our master teacher or career ladder program and were telling me how grateful they were for that. but let me tell you this: it was a controversial, difficult effort. it was opposed massively by the national education association, whose members this morning were thanking me for the program. because it's not easy to

determine in a fair way how to reward outstanding teaching. particularly if you're going to relate it to student achievement , and particularly if you're going to relate it to performance pay. so the best way to do that is to encourage states and encourage school districts to try different ways of doing it and hope they succeed and borrow ideas from one another. that's what the teachers incentive fund has done the last few years, a part of no child left behind. i fully -- i fully support that and hope we continue giving money to help school districts who want to try different forums of -- forms of performance-based pay. but to require a student-teacher evaluation in order to get a waiver from no child left behind runs the risk of school districts all over the state, 100,000 schools, being supervised by the national school board.

now, i have had very good conversations with well-meaning superintendents and others in school districts who say but you've got to make us do it or we won't do it. well, i just don't buy that. i mean i don't think that you can make schools better from washington, d.c. we can create an environment in which they might succeed. schools are like jobs. we have a national responsibility for them but we can't create them here. we can create an environment to make it easier and cheaper to create jobs, private sector jobs and we can create an environment to make it easier to create better schools. and one of the problems -- and then the next thing someone would say, well, there's no harm in just saying in a federal law or in a requirement for a waiver that you must have a growth model or you must have a performance standard or you must have a teacher-principal evaluation program. what's wrong with that?

here's what's wrong with it: that's not the end of it. because there is the habit then every time i've seen it except one time when we passed a law saying the secretary of education couldn't do it, of creating regulations to interpret what the federal government means by "growth models, performance standards, or teacher-principal evaluation systems." and a lot of well-meaning staff members and peer review groups then decide what a teacher principal evaluation system related to student achievement looks like. that's going to be very hard to do, madam president, since nobody knows what it looks like. that would be like telling people to require -- requiring them to drive cars before the car was invented. we have had several good experiments around the country about identifying good teaching, rewarding

performance, relating it to student achievement, relating it to better pay. but it's been very hard to do. no one is absolutely sure how to do it. and the worst thing we could do at this time with teacher and principal evaluation related to student achievement, even though i believe it is the holy grail of school reform, is to impose any version of it from here. so, madam president, i'm simply asking the president and the secretary tomorrow to exercise restraint. i have a lot of admiration for this secretary and respect for the president's positions on kindergarten through the 12th grade. many of the ideas which the legislation advanced by republican senators last week to

fix no child left behind were suggested by secretary dunk con. he has gone out of his way to work with the republicans as well as democrats. he has been energetic, able secretary, and i support most of his ideas. for example, we -- he supported the idea -- we agreed to it, democrats, republicans, senate and house that instead of reauthorizing all of this big law, we'd just fix it and then we identified nine areas that we'd try fix. the secretary was comfort able with that. so were our democratic colleagues. so were the republican senators. first we'd set a new, realistic but challenging goal to help all students succeed. we agree on that -- instead of a goal that will require 80,000 students -- schools to be labeled as "failing," we'll have a new goal that says students will be college- and career-ready. we agree that we should free 95%

of schools from the federal requirement of adequate yearly progress. what that simply means is instead of washington deciding whether a school in nashville is succeeding or failing, that decision will be made by the state of tennessee. and the state of tennessee will be able to make it a lot better today than it did in 2001 because since then we've had common standards adopted by 44 states, tests to those standards adopted by about the same number, we have chief state school officers agreeing on accountability systems -- these are the performance targets, the growth models, the other such things -- see lot of work has been done. in this case of tennessee, they won the race for the top competition, which i also support. the third thing that we agree is that the federal government would help states fix the bottom 5% of their schools. that's 4,500 schools picked by

the states. the secretary agrees with that. we republicans agree with that. i believe our senate democratic colleagues agree with that. we agree on having colleges promote career readiness. we agree on encouraging teacher and principal evaluation systems to replace federal highly qualified teacher requirements. but for us that means allowing states, if they choose to do it, to use title 2 money to pay for it. in other words, we're he not going to require it, we're not going to refine it, we're going to let it flourish. we believe in continuing the necessary reporting. this may be the greatest contribution of no child left behind since 2002. it reports how schools are doing not on the average but by group. so we can find out if the african-american children or if the hispanic children are doing as well as other children. and we have this great volume of

information now from school districts all over the state so that we have, in effect, better report cards. we believe, on the republican side -- and i think there is agreement in principle at least on the democratic side -- that we should allow school districts to transfer federal funds more easily within their -- to meet their needs and to consolidate federal programs. and we believe in empowering parents. in my office this morning one of the state principals of the year from tennessee was from paulo middle school. his enrollment went from 920 to 1,060 principally because parents were choosing to take their children out of schools where they weren't succeeding and they were permitted to transfer them to another school, in this case the pal middle school, where they could succeed. so, those my request -- so

that's my request of a secretary that i admire and a president i -- whose education policies for k-12 i respect. please show restraint. just because you have every state over a barrel, don't be tempted to use this opportunity to become a national school board. step back, look at the applications for waivers. if they enhance student achievement, say "yes." if they don't, say "no." and then one last point. someone might say -- and they'd be exactly right -- that the real reason the secretary is granting waivers is because congress hasn't done its job and they'd be exactly right about that. we're in our ninth year of no child left behind. we should have fixed it four years ago when the law expired. but it just continues, according to the provisions of the original law.

we have substantial agreement here in the senate, except for these accountability provisions, these differences over whether we're creating a national school board. we should come to a conclusion about this. we should get-out-the-vote a result. we shouldn't -- we should get a result. we shouldn't create a situation wherever governor has to come to washington to get a waiver from standards that don't work anymore. that's our job to do. so i agree the secretary has the power to do it. i support his doing it in a limited way. i hope he exercises with restraint, as he does it, and i call on our democratic colleagues, with whom we've met dozens of times, to redouble our joint effort to get a a result. this is not a case where we don't want president obama to succeed. we want him to succeed. -- on k-12k education because if

he does, our country does. we substantially agree on how we need to fix no child left behind. we still have a few differences of opinion. the secretary's regulatory action shouldn't do what the congress ought to be doing. so he should show some restraint, i respectfully corks and we should get to work. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with calling of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: madam president, we are at a -- i ask unanimous consent that i have time to speak as if in

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: thank you. we find ourselves in a peculiar condition. we must have the people across this country scratching their heads and wondering what are those guys doing? we know that they don't think much of us as it is, and they're going to think less of us now when they see what's happening. we have a tradition in our country. when disaster strikes, we respond. americans pull together and help each other. it's what we see happening in the aftermath of hurricane irene, devastated new jersey and other states along the east coast, and other natural disasters hitting our country across its breadth.

fires in one state. we see water shortages in another. problems yet in another. there isn't a state in this country that hasn't felt the wrath of a storm or the difficulty that nature presents. but the one thing that we don't see here is the spirit of cooperation. it doesn't extend to some of our colleagues. i look at the house disaster relief proposal. one thing is for sure, it's totally inadequate. madam president, this is an emergency, and it's just plain heartless for our colleagues to turn their backs on families who are struggling to rebuild their shattered lives. i don't know what they're thinking, because we know that difficulties have struck all 50

of our states at one time or another, a lot fairly recently. and these people who are saying, no, we're not going to give you enough money to deal with the emergencies that we have, and i hope that the people who are in their districts or in their states look at their representatives and say, hey, wait a second, we've got problems here, and these people who are so negative, so negatively disposed are raising havoc with their families within their own states or their own districts. just turning their backs on them. the early estimates suggest that hurricane irene could become one of the ten costliest storms in american history, with damages that could exceed $10 billion.

this violent storm produced some of the worst flooding in a century destroying homes and displacing countless families. in my state alone, new jersey, 11 lives were lost. people were turned out of their houses, in many cases, as i saw them, as president obama saw them when he came to my state, they can't go back to those houses. and they certainly, for the most part, those who had to evacuate their homes put their furniture out on the front lawn. their furniture is unusable even if they can get in the house. so life has a grim picture for these people. the president came to new jersey to see for himself the destruction that hurricane irene caused. i joined him on a tour of the city of paterson, new jersey. it's my hometown. i was born there. it was one of the cities hardest hit by flooding. we have a picture here. it has lots of pretty colors,

but it has a disastrous portrayal. water all over the place. the bridge just about under water. we witnessed unforgettable images, streets and sidewalks covered in mud, and in some houses the second floors were covered in mud as well. the picture shows damage in bound brook, new jersey. here we see again flooded roadways. by the way, in my state of new jersey, new jersey happens to be the most densely populated state in the country. we have nine million people in a very small area. and so when something like hits, it hits a lot of people in a hurry. krapb ford, new jersey -- cranford, new jersey, we're seeing here material -- this you would call trash, but the people

who lived here didn't call it trash. these were their possessions. these were the things that their kids slept on night after night or tables they ate from every day. trash. and that's what these people across the capitol, people on the other side in the house of representatives, they say, too bad. first of all, we'll have to go find the money if we're going to do anything here. and secondly, we're just not going to give enough money to deal with the problem. we have a city called boonton, new jersey. people are unable to get what they needed. there was a bridge there before. it's gone. how do you get across town? well, maybe you just don't. with hurpb, we witnessed -- with hurricane irene, we witnessed nature's power to destroy, and now it's time to see the federal government step up, get in there to repair, rebuild, restore,

give people encouragement. i saw with the president of the united states, when the president stood there, people wept when they held his hand. they wept not because it was a sad picture for the president, but it was a sad picture for their lives. they were thinking about their own kids, they were thinking about their own lives, and the president was a sign of relief. the president of the united states is here. he's going to make sure that we get help in a hurry. but our republican friends on the other side, they say no hurry, no hurry. i hope that the people in these states, the people in these districts will record these moments, will see them. we'll remind them about it. even before this hurricane struck, fema's primary source of funding for cleanup and recovery, the disaster relief fund was already on life support. they didn't have enough money to

do their job. the fund was depleted by recent tornadoes, flooding that wreaked havoc across the midwest and the south and wildfire that ranged in the south and the west. so here in the senate, we passed a bill, and it wasn't easy. and a lot of our colleagues stood up to the assignment and said, okay, i don't necessarily agree but i agree conceptually. therefore, i'm going to agree to put $7 billion in funding available to help victims of hurricane irene as well as recent tornadoes and wildfires. our bill provides funding to get us through the end of the month, because our fiscal year ends at the end of september, just a few days away. and to support emergency needs when the next fiscal year begins in october. last week ten republicans had

the guts to stand up and say "i don't care about them whr-rbgs it's the -- about them, whether it's the democrats proposing this. i care about the people who are going to serve. and they stood up and they voted with us. it took courage. they stood up for their constituents, people across the country trying to rebuild their lives. this was a courageous vote for them. and it shows that there is partisan support for the senate disaster relief bill. in contrast, the house republicans couldn't even get enough support from their own party to pass their measly proposal last night. it's time for them to embrace the senate plan on disaster relief and stop using disaster victims as political pawns. who are they going to hurt? going to hurt obama? going to hurt democrat frats who

are in office? no. the pain goes to ordinary people who work foyer their lives and take care of their family and serve in our military. those are the people they're saying no to. it's too bad, it's too bad a lot of these people are veterans, have come back from dangerous duty. they go home, their unemployment rate is high. and very often they're rebuilding their lives. if they have a home, a domicile in these areas, can't help them. the house republicans approach offers a little more than $3 billion in disaster relief. sounds like a lot of money but that's not even close to being enough. it's going to leave our residents, our states, our

cities and towns out in the cold at a time when they desperately need help. in addition to shortchanging fema, the house provides zero funding for many other programs that are needed to help us recover. our senate bill includes funding for community development block grants, a very important program. it gives communities money and latitude with an ability to deal with the problems that face them. to provide our communities with long-term support, economic development administration grants, to help businesses grow again. hire people. produce product that also includes funding for the department of agriculture to help farmers and residents in rural areas to recover. it's the kind of help that we offered in 2008, in 2010, when hurricanes and heavy rains caused destruction in states like texas and kentucky,

tennessee and indiana. and it's what we have to do again. the house republicans filed provide funding to farmers, economic development or long-term support for local communities. to rebuild. that's what you do when you have a crisis, an accident. and there can't be any debate about the help that's required in all 50 states. it requires bipartisan support because you can't get it done with only one party. every state has experienced a disaster in recent years, and this year alone federal disasters have been declared in 48 states. fema's working in every one of those states to help communities rebuild and recover if they have the resources. if they don't, they won't be on

the job and people will continue to suffer. if the house republicans get their way, every state is on the verge of disaster. incredibly, the house proposal pays for disaster relief by taking money from advanced technological development that will help our automobile industry, for instance, and create jobs. here in the senate, we have to reject this misguided approach. we have to say no way, we're not going to rob peter to pay paul. they simply want to rob peter and paul, that's what they want to do, of assistance and help. we should ask why it was acceptable to provide more than than $800 billion to invade and then rebuild iraq without paying for it, no questions asked. and that's the families that made sacrifices in that war, how they felt about it. but we turned our back on them, that's what we've done.

but when the time comes to rebuild america, some republicans want to hold the money hostage until painful spending cuts are inflicted elsewhere. they are gunning for the president of the united states. they think that they are going to be able to -- to smash president obama's accomplishments, getting people, a couple of million people to work, the packages that got america -- that got the -- defined stopped where it was and start it turned around. you have got to remember something. i was the senior member, democrat member on the budget committee when these reckless tax cuts came up for the wealthy it cost $700 billion over ten years. they were approved without being paid for. it's pretty clear when it comes

to giving big tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, the wealthy among us, and madam chairman, i say this without meaning to boast. i ran a very good company, a company that i helped start with two other fellows. now employs 45,000 people. there were three of us, and i with my education being paid for by the government because i served in the army for three years, and i got the g.i. bill. so i will tell you this and i will tell this to all of my colleagues, and i hope they hear me. i think it's time for people like me who made money to give something back to bring strength to our country and not argue about whether or not they should

be able to -- if they pay enough tax. they don't pay enough tax. warren buffett says they don't pay, listen to him, that they don't pay enough tax. it doesn't hurt those of us who have been successful the least bit to pay a few more percent in taxes, and you can feel good about it, look into the mirror after you have put something in of value that your country needs that strengthens the working class of people, that tells them, listen, we have gotten our share and now it's our responsibility to give back some part of that share. when it comes to giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, republicans don't give a second thought as to how much they cost, but to our country's disaster victims, they have to go to the back of the line and wait their turn. when disaster strikes, victims don't want us to reach for the budget acts. they want us to extend that

helping hand that get their lives back started again. the fact is that disaster victims have enough to worry about. in many years, people's lives have seen moments of jeopardy and difficulty, and they fully gave what they had to help their country. feeling all the time that the government is going to stand behind them. that's what this country of ours is about, this democracy, the constitution demands that we give, we improve the lives of our citizens. we give them rights, we give them support, we give them a view of life. house republicans want to turn

their backs on storm victims. a lot of them are new here. they ought to enjoy these turns because they may not have another one when the public finds out what they're doing. turn their backs on storm victims, local communities, regional economies and farmers. their proposal will cost us jobs, and i hope their jobs will be included in it when it comes time next year to vote. i appeal to my republican colleagues, stand up, stand up for those who live in your states including your neighbors, including your state's children, including the state's families. remember this, republican senators, republican house members, that you represent people across political lines, across religious lines, across all different lines, and your

obligation is to take care of those people when they need help, to give them some support, to give them some hope, to give them some vision. that's what we're supposed to be doing here. we're supposed to be encouraging our citizens, our constituents, and not simply turning our back. what we ought to have is a camera in here that shows that every time people vote no on issues and make sure that it's clearly understood when people turn their back on their fellow citizens. we face serious fiscal challenges in our country, but we cannot put a price on human life, and nothing, nothing is more important than keeping our communities, our families and our economy safe. with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: and that i may be recognized to speak. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on the amendment number 651 offered pie the senator from florida, mr. rubio and there will be two minutes, equally divided prior to the vote. mr. rubio: thank you. this returns the t.a.a. back to its original inept. it was designed to help workers who lost their jobs as a result of trade practices and primarily as a result of free trade agreements between the united states and other country. it's one of the reasons why i believe the majority has brought this vote -- has brought this issue before us, before proceeding to the free trade agreements with south korea, with panama, with colombia. what this does, it returns it back to that. clearly recognizing that there are workers who have been hurt by unfair trade practices,

unrelated to the trade agreements, whether it's china or other nations, and those things need to be dealt with separately. this program was originally designed to help workers who were harmed this the short term by -- that's why it's called adjustment. workers trying to adjust as a result of some disruptions that may have occurred as a result of a trade agreement. i think we can take solace in knowing the best thing you can do for a worker who has lost their job is get them a job. ultimately that's what free trade agreements do. they create jobs in america as the white house has recognized. my hope is we will proceed quickly to passage of the three free trade agreements and i urge the white house to submit those and the body to take them up as soon as possible. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you very much. the conflict with regard to the amendment that's been proposed is on our side of this debate we think this should be a broad array of help for workers. if a worker loses his or her job and we can -- we can provide

eligibility for trade adjustment assistance, we shouldn't limit that just to the 17 countries with which we have a trade agreement. say if we have a problem with massive job losses as a result of what china is doing, because they're cheating on currency or not playing pie the rules. as we know, they have not in many instances. i have a chart here, a table that indicates in fiscal year 2012 when you look at the estimated number of workers certified under trade adjustment whether they're import related certifications or whether they're all other certifications, you add it up, 287,000, more than 287,000 people that are impacted in a -- and a lot of those are impacted by way of unfair trade from china. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. casey: i yield the floor. i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are 62. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the -- under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 650 offered by the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, and there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officerpresident?y we have order. the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: my amendment requires a study by the international trade commission from wh a trade agreement has been signed but the